By submitting your personal information, you agree to receive emails regarding relevant products and special offers from TechTarget and its partners. You also agree that your personal information may be transferred and processed in the United States, and that you have read and agree to the Terms of Use and the Privacy Policy.

I thought fibre channel was the serial implementation for SCSI. Why do we need another one (SAS)?

That's a fair question. There were a great many suppliers of disks that are installed in servers that never switched to fibre channel primarily because the components were a little more expensive than parallel SCSI; also, SCSI was on the motherboard, and fibre channel wasn't. Because of that cost differential, those vendors wanted a less expensive serial implementation that was high-performance (and, therefore, not serial ATA), and they developed serial-attached SCSI, or SAS. So, it's primarily a price issue, as the implementation is a little cheaper than fibre channel; but SAS is more limited in distance and performance.

0 comments

E-Mail

Username / Password

Password

By submitting you agree to receive email from TechTarget and its partners. If you reside outside of the United States, you consent to having your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States. Privacy